Ethics and data protection in human biomarker studies in environmental health

Specific measures for data-intensive health research without consent: a systematic review of soft law instruments and academic literature

It is a common misunderstanding of current European data protection law that when consent is not being used as lawful basis, the processing of personal data is prohibited. Article 9(2)(j) of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) permits Member States to establish a legal basis in national law that allows for the processing of personal data for scientific research purposes without consent. However, the European legislator has formulated this "research exemption" as an opening clause, rendering the GDPR not specific as to what measures exactly are required to comply with the research exemption. This may have significant implications for both the protection of personal data and the advancement of data-intensive health research. We performed a systematic review of relevant soft law instruments and academic literature to identify what measures are mentioned in those documents. Our analysis resulted in the identification of four overarching themes of suggested measures: organizational measures; technical measures; oversight and review mechanisms; and public engagement and participation. Some of the suggested measures do not substantially contribute to the clarification of the GDPR's "suitable and specific measures" requirement because they remain vague or broad in nature and encompass all types of data processing. However, the themes oversight and review mechanisms and public engagement and participation provide valuable insights which can be put to practice. Nevertheless, further clarification of the measures and safeguards that should be installed when invoking the research exemption remains necessary.

Communicating environmental exposure results and health information in a community-based participatory research study

Background

Communicating results to participants is a fundamental component of community-based participatory research (CBPR). However, in environmental exposure studies this is not always practiced, partly due to ethical concerns of communicating results that have unknown clinical significance.

Methods

Growing Up Healthy was a community-based participatory research study that sought to understand the relationship between environmental exposures to phthalates and early puberty in young girls. After in-depth consultation with a Community Advisory Board, study investigators provided group summary results of phthalate exposures and related health information to the parents of study participants. Parents’ comprehension and knowledge of the health information provided was then assessed through questionnaires.

Results

After receiving the information from the research team, responders were able to correctly answer comprehension questions about phthalate exposures in their community, were able to identify ways to reduce exposure to phthalates, and indicated plans to do so. Questionnaires revealed that parents wanted more information on phthalates, and that children’s environmental health was an important concern.

Conclusions

We conclude that effective communication of exposure results of unknown clinical significance to participants in environmental health studies can be achieved by providing group summary results and actionable health information. Results suggest that there was an improvement in knowledge of environmental health and in risk reduction behaviors in our study population.

Young people's views about the purpose and composition of research ethics committees: findings from the PEARL qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a birth cohort study within which the Project to Enhance ALSPAC through Record Linkage (PEARL) was established to enrich the ALSPAC resource through linkage between ALSPAC participants and routine sources of health and social data. PEARL incorporated qualitative research to seek the views of young people about data linkage, including their opinions about appropriate safeguards and research governance. In this paper we focus on views expressed about the purpose and composition of research ethics committees.

METHODS

Digitally recorded interviews were conducted with 48 participants aged 17-19 years. Participants were asked about whether medical research should be monitored and controlled, their knowledge of research ethics committees, who should sit on these committees and what their role should be. Interview recordings were fully transcribed and anonymised. Thematic analysis was undertaken, assisted by the Framework approach to data management.

RESULTS

The majority of interviewees had little or no specific knowledge of ethics committees. Once given basic information about research ethics committees, only three respondents suggested there was no need for such bodies to scrutinise research. The key tasks of ethics committees were identified as monitoring the research process and protecting research participants. The difficulty of balancing the potential to inhibit research against the need to protect research participants was acknowledged. The importance of relevant research and professional expertise was identified but it was also considered important to represent wider public opinion, and to counter the bias potentially associated with self-selection possibly through a selection process similar to 'jury duty'.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for more education and public awareness about the role and composition of research ethics committees. Despite an initial lack of knowledge, interviewees were able to contribute their ideas and balance the rights of individuals with the wider benefits from research. The suggestion that public opinion should be represented through random selection similar to jury duty may be worth pursuing in the light of the need to ensure diversity of opinion and establish trust amongst the general public about the use of 'big data' for the wider public good.

Communication in a Human biomonitoring study: Focus group work, public engagement and lessons learnt in 17 European countries

A communication strategy was developed by The Consortium to Perform Human Biomonitoring on a European Scale (COPHES), as part of its objectives to develop a framework and protocols to enable the collection of comparable human biomonitoring data throughout Europe. The framework and protocols were tested in the pilot study DEMOCOPHES (Demonstration of a study to Coordinate and Perform Human biomonitoring on a European Scale). The aims of the communication strategy were to raise awareness of human biomonitoring, encourage participation in the study and to communicate the study results and their public health significance. It identified the audiences and key messages, documented the procedure for dissemination of results and was updated as the project progressed. A communication plan listed the tools and materials such as press releases, flyers, recruitment letters and information leaflets required for each audience with a time frame for releasing them. Public insight research was used to evaluate the recruitment material, and the feedback was used to improve the documents. Dissemination of results was coordinated in a step by step approach by the participating countries within DEMOCOPHES, taking into account specific national messages according to the needs of each country. Participants received individual results, unless they refused to be informed, along with guidance on what the results meant. The aggregate results and policy recommendations were then communicated to the general public and stakeholders, followed by dissemination at European level. Several lessons were learnt that may assist other future human biomonitoring studies. Recruitment took longer than anticipated and so social scientists, to help with community engagement, should be part of the research team from the start. As a European study, involving multiple countries, additional considerations were needed for the numerous organisations, different languages, cultures, policies and priorities. Therefore, communication documents should be seen as templates with essential information clearly indicated and the option for each country to tailor the material to reflect these differences. Future studies should consider setting up multidisciplinary networks of medical professionals and communication experts, and holding training workshops to discuss the interpretation of results and risk communication. Publicity and wide dissemination of the results helped to raise awareness of human biomonitoring to the general public, policy makers and other key stakeholders. Effective and timely communication, at all stages of a study, is essential if the potential of human biomonitoring research to improve public health is to be realised.